Search Results

Search found 31038 results on 1242 pages for 'michael best'.

Page 136/1242 | < Previous Page | 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143  | Next Page >

  • Arguments against Create or Update

    - by Nix
    Recently someone stated that they thought all Creates should be CreateOrUpdates. Instinctively i thought bad, but now I am trying to find out if I have any grounds. Situation interface IService{ void Create(Object a); void Update(Object a); } or interface IService{ void CreateOrUpdate(Object a); } My first thought is if you implemented everything CreateOrUpdate then you have no control if someone accidentally sends you wrong data, or concurrency issues where someone changes a "primary" field right before you call update.... But if you remove those cases, are there any other cons?

    Read the article

  • Building a life-critical System using Agile

    - by Ben Breen
    Looking at the general trend of comments in my question about Building an Aircraft using Agile, the biggest problem other than cost appears to be safety. Do people feel that it is not possible to build a safe system (or prove it is safe) using agile? Doesn’t all the iterative testing mitigate this? Is it likely that a piece of software developed using agile will never be as reliable as counterparts such as waterfall?

    Read the article

  • Simplest way to create a wrapper class around some strings for a WPF DataGrid?

    - by Joel
    I'm building a simple hex editor in C#, and I've decided to use each cell in a DataGrid to display a byte*. I know that DataGrid will take a list and display each object in the list as a row, and each of that object's properties as columns. I want to display rows of 16 bytes each, which will require a wrapper with 16 string properties. While doable, it's not the most elegant solution. Is there an easier way? I've already tried creating a wrapper around a public string array of size 16, but that doesn't seem to work. Thanks *The rational for this is that I can have spaces between each byte without having to strip them all out when I want to save my edited file. Also it seems like it'll be easier to label the rows and columns.

    Read the article

  • Subclassing and adding data members

    - by Marius
    I have an hierarchy of classes that looks like the following: class Critical { public: Critical(int a, int b) : m_a(a), m_b(b) { } virtual ~Critical() { } int GetA() { return m_a; } int GetB() { return m_b; } void SetA(int a) { m_a = a; } void SetB(int b) { m_b = b; } protected: int m_a; int m_b; }; class CriticalFlavor : public Critical { public: CriticalFlavor(int a, int b, int flavor) : Critical(a, b), m_flavor(flavor) { } virtual ~CriticalFlavor() { } int GetFlavor() { return m_flavor; } void SetFlavor(int flavor) { m_flavor = flavor; } protected: int m_flavor; }; class CriticalTwist : public Critical { public: CriticalTwist(int a, int b, int twist) : Critical(a, b), m_twist(twist) { } virtual ~CriticalTwist() { } int GetTwist() { return m_twist; } void SetTwist(int twist) { m_twist = twist; } protected: int m_twist; }; The above does not seem right to me in terms of the design and what bothers me the most is the fact that the addition of member variables seems to drive the interface of these classes (the real code that does the above is a little more complex but still embracing the same pattern). That will proliferate when in need for another "Critical" class that just adds some other property. Does this feel right to you? How could I refactor such code? An idea would be to have just a set of interfaces and use composition when it comes to the base object like the following: class Critical { public: virtual int GetA() = 0; virtual int GetB() = 0; virtual void SetA(int a) = 0; virtual void SetB(int b) = 0; }; class CriticalImpl { public: CriticalImpl(int a, int b) : m_a(a), m_b(b) { } ~CriticalImpl() { } int GetA() { return m_a; } int GetB() { return m_b; } void SetA(int a) { m_a = a; } void SetB(int b) { m_b = b; } private: int m_a; int m_b; }; class CriticalFlavor { public: virtual int GetFlavor() = 0; virtual void SetFlavor(int flavor) = 0; }; class CriticalFlavorImpl : public Critical, public CriticalFlavor { public: CriticalFlavorImpl(int a, int b, int flavor) : m_flavor(flavor), m_critical(new CriticalImpl(a, b)) { } ~CriticalFlavorImpl() { delete m_critical; } int GetFlavor() { return m_flavor; } void SetFlavor(int flavor) { m_flavor = flavor; } int GetA() { return m_critical-GetA(); } int GetB() { return m_critical-GetB(); } void SetA(int a) { m_critical-SetA(a); } void SetB(int b) { m_critical-SetB(b); } private: int m_flavor; CriticalImpl* m_critical; };

    Read the article

  • Validation - Data Integrity

    - by Thomas
    A table can only store 10 records in a particular state, 10 users over 30 years for example, the others must be less than 30 years. It is a business rule and as such should be respected. How to ensure that state? Think: multiple users accessing this table.

    Read the article

  • MemoryStream instance timing help

    - by rod
    Hi All, Is it ok to instance a MemoryStream at the top of my method, do a bunch of stuff to it, and then use it? For instance: public static byte[] TestCode() { MemoryStream m = new MemoryStream(); ... ... whole bunch of stuff in between ... ... //finally using(m) { return m.ToArray(); } } Updated code public static byte[] GetSamplePDF() { using (MemoryStream m = new MemoryStream()) { Document document = new Document(); PdfWriter.GetInstance(document, m); document.Open(); PopulateTheDocument(document); document.Close(); return m.ToArray(); } } private static void PopulateTheDocument(Document document) { Table aTable = new Table(2, 2); aTable.AddCell("0.0"); aTable.AddCell("0.1"); aTable.AddCell("1.0"); aTable.AddCell("1.1"); document.Add(aTable); for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) { document.Add(new Phrase("Hello World, Hello Sun, Hello Moon, Hello Stars, Hello Sea, Hello Land, Hello People. ")); } } My point was to try to reuse building the byte code. In other words, build up any kind of document and then send it to TestCode() method.

    Read the article

  • Should you always write code for else cases that "can never happen"?

    - by johnswamps
    Take some code like if (person.IsMale()) { doGuyStuff(); } else { doGirlOtherStuff(); } (Yes, I realize this is bad OO code, it's an example) Should this be written so that to explicitly check if person.isFemale(), and then add a new else that throws an exception? Or maybe you're checking values in an enum, or something like that. You think that no one will add new elements to the enum, but who knows? "Can never happen" sounds like famous last words.

    Read the article

  • Why is Visual Basic used?

    - by Arrieta
    I don't mean to start a holy war here, but I cannot fathom why would anybody use Visual Basic for a new project. Can you explain me why is it used? What new applications (which a lay person may be familiar with) have been developed in it? Why is it chosen over other languages? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Which user account to assign as owner when attaching an SQL Server database?

    - by FreshCode
    This is a simple database security & performance question, but I've always used either a special user (eg. mydbuser), or Windows' built-in NETWORK SECURITY account as the owner when attaching databases to my SQL Server instances. When deploying my database to a production server, is there a specific user I should stick to or avoid? I would think that using an account with a set password could open the database up to a potential security issue.

    Read the article

  • How do you determine how coarse or fine-grained a 'responsibility' should be when using the single r

    - by Mark Rogers
    In the SRP, a 'responsibility' is usually described as 'a reason to change', so that each class (or object?) should have only one reason someone should have to go in there and change it. But if you take this to the extreme fine-grain you could say that an object adding two numbers together is a responsibility and a possible reason to change. Therefore the object should contain no other logic, because it would produce another reason for change. I'm curious if there is anyone out there that has any strategies for 'scoping', the single-responsibility principle that's slightly less objective?

    Read the article

  • Right design to validate attributes of a class instance

    - by systempuntoout
    Having a simple Python class like this: class Spam(object): __init__(self, description, value): self.description = description self.value = value Which is the correct approach to check these constraints: "description cannot be empty" "value must be greater than zero" Should i: 1.validate data before creating spam object ? 2.check data on __init__ method ? 3.create an is_valid method on Spam class and call it with spam.isValid() ? 4.create an is_valid static method on Spam class and call it with Spam.isValid(description, value) ? 5.check data on setters? 6.... Could you recommend a well designed\Pythonic\not verbose (on class with many attributes)\elegant approach?

    Read the article

  • Reference table values in a war against magic numbers

    - by Alex N.
    This question bugged me for years now and can't seem to find good solution still. I working in PHP and Java but it sounds like this maybe language-agnostic :) Say we have a standard status reference table that holds status ids for some kind of entity. Further let's assume the table will have just 5 values, and will remain like this for a long time, maybe edited occasionally with addition of a new status. When you fetch a row and need to see what status it is you have 2 options(as I see it at least) - put it straight ID values(magic numbers that is) or use a named constant. Latter seem much cleaner, the question though is where those named constants should leave? In a model class? In a class that uses this particular constant? Somewhere else?

    Read the article

  • Documentation style: how do you differentiate variable names from the rest of the text within a comm

    - by Alix
    Hi, This is a quite superfluous and uninteresting question, I'm afraid, but I always wonder about this. When you're commenting code with inline comments (as opposed to comments that will appear in the generated documentation) and the name of a variable appears in the comment, how do you differentiate it from normal text? E.g.: // Try to parse type. parsedType = tryParse(type); In the comment, "type" is the name of the variable. Do you mark it in any way to signify that it's a symbol and not just part of the comment's text? I've seen things like this: // Try to parse "type". // Try to parse 'type'. // Try to parse *type*. // Try to parse <type>. // Try to parse [type]. And also: // Try to parse variable type. (I don't think the last one is very helpful; it's a bit confusing; you could think "variable" is an adjective there) Do you have any preference? I find that I need to use some kind of marker; otherwise the comments are sometimes ambiguous, or at least force you to reread them when you realise a particular word in the comment was actually the name of a variable. (In comments that will appear in the documentation I use the appropriate tags for the generator, of course: @code, <code></code>, etc) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection in C++

    - by Yorgos Pagles
    This is also a question that I asked in a comment in one of Miško Hevery's google talks that was dealing with dependency injection but it got buried in the comments. I wonder how can the factory / builder step of wiring the dependencies together can work in C++. I.e. we have a class A that depends on B. The builder will allocate B in the heap, pass a pointer to B in A's constructor while also allocating in the heap and return a pointer to A. Who cleans up afterwards? Is it good to let the builder clean up after it's done? It seems to be the correct method since in the talk it says that the builder should setup objects that are expected to have the same lifetime or at least the dependencies have longer lifetime (I also have a question on that). What I mean in code: class builder { public: builder() : m_ClassA(NULL),m_ClassB(NULL) { } ~builder() { if (m_ClassB) { delete m_ClassB; } if (m_ClassA) { delete m_ClassA; } } ClassA *build() { m_ClassB = new class B; m_ClassA = new class A(m_ClassB); return m_ClassA; } }; Now if there is a dependency that is expected to last longer than the lifetime of the object we are injecting it into (say ClassC is that dependency) I understand that we should change the build method to something like: ClassA *builder::build(ClassC *classC) { m_ClassB = new class B; m_ClassA = new class A(m_ClassB, classC); return m_ClassA; } What is your preferred approach?

    Read the article

  • Tool that auto-generate a code for accesing a xml-file

    - by alex
    My application have a configuration xml-file. That file contains more than 50 program settings. At the present time I read and save each program setting separately. I guess It is not effi?iently for such tasks. I need something that can auto-generate a code for load and save my program settings using predefined xml-schema. I found a dataset in Add New Item dialog. Unfortunately, i cannot add new code to dataset1 such as events in set-accessors of properties because of this // Changes to this file may cause incorrect behavior and will be lost if // the code is regenerated. Maybe, there is a tool that allows a user to generate a wrapper for accesing a xml-file ? Such as DataSet1, but with availability to add events.

    Read the article

  • When to rewrite vs. upgrade?

    - by MrGumbe
    All custom legacy software needs changing, or so say our users. Sometimes they want a feature or two added and all that is necessary to change a bit of code, add a control, or some other minor upgrade task. Sometimes they want to ditch their error-prone VB5 desktop solution and rewrite the whole thing as a rich Web 2.0 ASP.NET MVC application. More often, however, the scope of changes to legacy functionality lies somewhere between these two extremes. What rules of thumb to you use to decide whether you should upgrade an existing application or start from scratch?

    Read the article

  • Is it ok to throw NotImplemented exception in virtual methods?

    - by Axarydax
    I have a base class for some plugin-style stuff, and there are some methods that are absolutely required to be implemented. I currently declare those in the base class as virtual, for example public virtual void Save { throw new NotImplementedException(); } and in the descendand I have a public override void Save() { //do stuff } Is it a good practice to throw a NotImplementedException there? The descendand classes could for example be the modules for handling different file formats. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to provide global functionality in multi-user database app

    - by Mike B
    I have been building a multi-user database application (in C#/WPF 4.0) that manages tasks for all employees of a company. I now need to add some functionality such as sending an email reminder to someone when a critical task is due. How should this be done? Obviously I don’t want every instance of the program to be performing this function (Heh each user would get 10+ emails). Should I add the capability to the application as a "Mode" and then run a copy on the database server in this mode or would it be better to create a new app altogether to perform "Global" type tasks? Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Is it a good idea to define a variable in a local block for a case of a switch statement?

    - by Paperflyer
    I have a rather long switch-case statement. Some of the cases are really short and trivial. A few are longer and need some variables that are never used anywhere else, like this: switch (action) { case kSimpleAction: // Do something simple break; case kComplexAction: { int specialVariable = 5; // Do something complex with specialVariable } break; } The alternative would be to declare that variable before going into the switch like this: int specialVariable = 5; switch (action) { case kSimpleAction: // Do something simple break; case kComplexAction: // Do something complex with specialVariable break; } This can get rather confusing since it is not clear to which case the variable belongs and it uses some unnecessary memory. However, I have never seen this usage anywhere else. Do you think it is a good idea to declare variables locally in a block for a single case?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143  | Next Page >